Yes, they do. The N. Hollywood shoot out or Mumbai attack were Black Swan events but the idea is to be ready for something like that. Some of the school rampages show that suicide with hostile intent killers can come up with assault rifles, EBRs, etc. Thus, long arms should be available to trained officers.

2. They scare people and imply a military approach. Research (my own and by several others) indicate that EBRs prime aggressive thoughts. That is behind a great deal of the opposition to police usage. But get past it. A wood stock Mini-14 or a Pump 223 by Remington is the same round but it looks nice? The point about Europe is well taken. I landed in London and a little tank rolled by outside my plane window. We cannot cater to the appearance issue. The real issue is misuse.

3. So the police have them and we can't. In most of the country you can have a semi auto EBR! The full auto issue to me is minimal if we let well trained police be efficacious.

4. Having such weapons leads the police to be aggressive and violate our civil rights. Bad cops have existed before the M-16/AR platform. That is more administrative and cultural.

There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm. Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo? Are we talking corbon or something similar that is 4 times as expensive. I know that is would be unlikely to happen in my area. With what LEO will probably actually be issued the over penetration is a greater concern than the 9mm actually issued.

One of the major contentions in this arguments seems to be that as long as the qualifications are met officers should be allowed to have the rifles. I am not really against this, but I know of LEO who pass their pistol qualification and just aren't very good shooters. If I were in a situation where they responded I would be every bt as afraid of their fire as the BGs. At least one organization in my area lets officers attempt to qualify as may times as they want. The standard is not impeccable. As someone stated the LEO hit rate is about 15% w/ pistols. Columbus has an almost 80% hit rate. That is amazing, but it is because of how much training they do. Many departments are not willing/able to put the funding into training they should if they are going to carry high powered rifles.

Imagine if a car dealer started giving away ARs with the purchase of a car. How many of us would think that was a good idea? That is the best analogy I can see to my problems with the current situation. The idea was to give about 10% of the officers rifles. Does someone think they did some sort of analysis to see if 10% were capable? How many think that if only 5% qualified they would let 100 rifles sit in storage? I do not. I would be surprised if 10% did not have prior military training and were shooting enthusiasts who could handle the responsibility, but I doubt any thought was given to this. You simply have some people who have no real interest in firearms who are going to end up with rifles(some locations issue a patrol rifle standard). Look at the west Hollywood situation. None of those officers knew there were bolt guns that would deliver devastating hits even to the body? There were almost certainly 30-06 rifles in that gun store, probably more powerful ones. If they did not know how to operate any of the hunting/target/whatever rifles of larger caliber or did not understand the difference between a 30-06 and a 223 I do not think they knew all that much about rifles in the first place. LEO are not ALL firearms and ballistics experts. Some are, but some are just there for the job, and some are there to save the world and are almost as annoying as your average hippy. That has to be considered in this situation. The qualifications need to be more stringent that the handgun qualifications.

A huge portion of the people I shoot with are retired/active LEO. They know what they are doing and are more than capable of having an AR in their trunk. I also live in a suburban/rural area, so many of them grew up with some firearms experience.

Turning an inadequately trained person loose with a full auto M16 in a foreign country is OK with me, semi-auto in a US city, not so much. Ethnocentrism for the win.

3. So the police have them and we can't. In most of the country you can have a semi auto EBR! The full auto issue to me is minimal if we let well trained police be efficacious.

Quote:

Boston Mayor Tom Menino said Friday he will not approve a police department plan to put semiautomatic M-16 rifles in the hands of regular patrol officers.

I thought an M16 was by definition select fire, either three round burst, or FA capable. Perhaps these were to be modified.

Quote:

There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm. Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo?

The amount of ammo that would be deployed/expended in the field would be negligible. There would be no need to to train with expensive hollow points. And even m193 is running 60 to 70 cents a round these days. I'm pretty certain that military surplus training ammo is available to LE depts.

But any additional equipment is going to have considerable expenditures associated with it, none bigger than the expense of proper training.

Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.

And I responded

Quote:

This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

No it is not

I think it is. It's basically an anti–police argument. Here are some such comments; IN THE ORIGINAL POST Dust Monkey wrote "This just might be the first of many such cities just saying no." [to the militarization of police]. Despite the disclaimer SteelJM1 wrote, "Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols…" In what seems to be a common misconception about the facts you wrote, "But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers." The facts are clear, these M-16's have been modified to fire only semi–auto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

you have for the second time characterized statements I have made, and attempted to place your own generalizations on them, and both times you were wrong.

I'll disagree and I think I've proved my point. THE VERY FIRST POST in this thread AGAIN mentioned the "militarization of the police."

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

At the risk of a repremand from the moderators I will tell you to either keep my posts in context, take a reading comprehension class, put me on your ignore list, or STFU.

When you get to be a moderator here you can tell me what to do. Until then I'll express my opinion as I see fit. Don't like it? Then feel free to follow the advice you just handed out. In fact I invite you to put me on ignore! Notice that, unlike you, my comments are just suggestions not empty orders from someone with neither the position nor the power to enforce them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

And just so we do not have any further mis- characterizations on the subject, I have no problem with patrol officers having the same semi-auto firearms available to them that are available to me.

I'll disagree again. I think that police should have any weapons that are reasonable that will help them in the fight against crime. In this case your ranting is pointless. These donated M-16's have been converted to fire semi–auto only. Or in your world are they still FA M–16's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Why ?

Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public.

Having M-16's converted to semi–auto (which makes them virtually identical to the AR-15 that is still legal to possess almost everywhere) hardly makes the police into a "paramilitary force." Neither does them having other equipment such as APC's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even.

The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content.

It really doesn’t need such an argument from me. You've done so prima facie. lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ?

"Big guy?" ROFL. Such a comment implies either some familiarity or is used deprecatingly. I'd bet on the latter. Just more rudeness from someone who's run out o logic and reason and has lost the argument.

I laid my cards on the table for nearly 30 years on a police department plus nearly four years in the military. Might we know of your contributions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

This post may draw an insta-ban, but I will not sit here and be "citizen-bashed" any longer. As cop-Bashing seems to be verboten, but "citizen-bashing" seems fine. Hypocritical you say ?

Odd but I haven't seen anyone bashing the citizens. But I have seen quite a few, you included, talking about the police violating the rights of citizens on a regular basis. "deciding not to uphold their oaths." Being, all but incompetent, with their weapons, and more.

The first sentence of this paragraph, mentioning that it "may draw an Insta-ban" shows us that you KNOW that this comment is inappropriate and improper. Yet you still wrote it. It would appear that YOU are the one violating the rules, yet you fear the police doing the same thing. AGAIN we see hypocrisy from you.

I suggest that you take the advice of George Bernard Shaw to heart, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

You just edited your post to add this paragraph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".

More tinfoil–worthy comments. Thinking that a police officer who does not have an M-16 in his trunk is perfectly OK but as soon as that M–16 appears he becomes an "army on [your] block" and a violator of your rights and empowered to enslave you, is well … well it's just beyond silly.

There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm.

"There seems to be some contention …" ROFL. Quite wrong. Such ammunition exists. There's no contention about that at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo?

They have and will. It's just another sales job. They now pay for hollow point handgun ammunition where they used to only pay for FMJ. Simply a matter of writing another grant request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Are we talking corbon or something similar that is 4 times as expensive.

That is but one such choice. One that you conveniently use because the factor of "expense" fits your argument. But such ammunition need not be that expensive, especially given that it will rarely be used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I know that is would be unlikely to happen in my area. With what LEO will probably actually be issued the over penetration is a greater concern than the 9mm actually issued.

Then if I was you I'd get busy writing letters to my local officials.

BTW do you know this to be a fact? Have you researched it? If so, please show us that research. If not, it's just more speculation based on a heavy bias. An unsupported opinion should not influence any but the holder of that opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

One of the major contentions in this arguments seems to be that as long as the qualifications are met officers should be allowed to have the rifles. I am not really against this, but I know of LEO who pass their pistol qualification and just aren't very good shooters. If I were in a situation where they responded I would be every bt as afraid of their fire as the BGs. At least one organization in my area lets officers attempt to qualify as may times as they want. The standard is not impeccable. As someone stated the LEO hit rate is about 15% w/ pistols.

I think that's about right WITH HANDGUNS. And as we all know most people find it far easier to shoot rifles accurately. Several times I've asked if anyone has "hit rate figures" for police using rifles but no one has responded. It could be that such figures don't exist because of the relatively low rate of use. It could also be that those who argue this position know that if such figures exist that it will greatly weaken their argument.

Add to this part of the discussion the fact that, for the most part, rifles will be used at longer ranges where handguns are less effective.

HERE'S. an interesting article that addresses this matter. BTW you might noticed the reference to "polymer tipped ammo."

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Many departments are not willing/able to put the funding into training they should if they are going to carry high powered rifles.

ROFLMAO. Just like an antigunners, you call the 5.56 a "high powered rifle." Giving away your true colors? The truth is that it's an intermediate power cartridge and has been known as such by intelligent, educated shooters since it was invented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Imagine if a car dealer started giving away ARs with the purchase of a car. How many of us would think that was a good idea? That is the best analogy I can see to my problems with the current situation.

I think the analogy is weak but I think it's a GREAT idea. As long as the purchaser of the car can legally purchase the gun, the more guns in the hands of honest decent citizens, the better I like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

The idea was to give about 10% of the officers rifles. Does someone think they did some sort of analysis to see if 10% were capable? How many think that if only 5% qualified they would let 100 rifles sit in storage? I do not.

Many departments do just that. Not only does an officer have to pass a qualification to carry the weapon but he has to actively WANT TO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I would be surprised if 10% did not have prior military training and were shooting enthusiasts who could handle the responsibility, but I doubt any thought was given to this.

Just more speculation. Let us know when you have some facts please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

You simply have some people who have no real interest in firearms who are going to end up with rifles(some locations issue a patrol rifle standard).

Those people probably will not deploy them. Lots of officers never take their SG out of the rack because they don't like it, and know that they won't use it well. I have no doubt that these guns will be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Look at the west Hollywood situation.

Actually it was the NORTH Hollywood situation. Officers of the "West Hollywood" station of the LA Sheriffs Dept. would be extremely put out by your error. LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

None of those officers knew there were bolt guns that would deliver devastating hits even to the body?

AGAIN you speculate. But this is REALLY a silly argument. A 5.56 round fired from an AR–15/M–16 is no different than the same round fired from a bolt gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

There were almost certainly 30-06 rifles in that gun store, probably more powerful ones. If they did not know how to operate any of the hunting/target/whatever rifles of larger caliber or did not understand the difference between a 30-06 and a 223 I do not think they knew all that much about rifles in the first place.

There's a far greater chance that AS I SAID, "It's quite possible that they chose the AR-15 because of its similarities to their military experience with the M-16."

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

LEO are not ALL firearms and ballistics experts.

Few are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Some are, but some are just there for the job, and some are there to save the world and are almost as annoying as your average hippy. That has to be considered in this situation. The qualifications need to be more stringent that the handgun qualifications.

OK. How do you know that they aren't. On my department no officer had any trouble with the handgun qualification. Yet many were unable to qualify with the long guns that were available, either the SG or the rifle. Those officers that did not qualify did not use those weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Turning an inadequately trained person loose with a full auto M16 in a foreign country is OK with me, semi-auto in a US city, not so much. Ethnocentrism for the win.

It's not OK with me. I'm not a big fan of collateral damage, even in a foreign country. I know it will happen but there's no reason to increase the rate of it.

Please notice that NO ONE in this discussion is advocating "turning an inadequately person loose with a full auto M–16 …" First these weapons ARE NOT FA! Second, everyone arguing for their use agrees that training and qualification is necessary.

1. Cut out the personal invective and stay with the technical issues. If you say something from this point on about another poster or their characteristics - you are gone.

2. Don't try to avoid the language filter - same warning - abbreviations and asterisks - you are gone. In fact, folks should go clean up their mess.

3. If you want a ban, the next time you ask - you got it.

If I didn't think the issue was worthy and have a techy interest - it would be closed now. I'll give it a little longer. However, I tried that with Sotomayor and had to close that when someone went Godwin.

I'm trying to be tolerant and appreciate a diversity of multiple cultures of the gun world but not for long.

The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Full auto is apparently a problem for some, caliber or "black rifle" is a problem for others. To me the problem is the lack of respect for our civil rights. No knock raids are a bigger problem to me than if the cop has an AR-15.

I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason is the mayor does not want to pay for another 20 or 40 hours of training per year per cop. He might also be nervous about the potential for the guns being stolen, as there have been a fair number of high profile incidents of stolen rifles from cop cars the last few years.

I don't see much of a downside to arming at least some street cops with carbines, anymore than with shotguns.

Chances are they will never be used, but it probably is not going to hurt anything, and it might make the cops feel better, even if it never leaves the trunk except to go back into the station house.

Its unlikely any citizens will be unduly frightened by them as they would only come out in a pretty serious situation where the citizenry in the area is probably already frightened.

__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMortensen

Rarely? Not rare enough for my liking:

One is too many for me. You gave a link for the Cato Institute. A wise person would take anything that comes from the Cato institute with a grain of salt. Their founder was a strict libertarian. ANY government is too much government for them.

Probably not. But I fail to see any relations between this story and the police getting semi–auto M-16's and this incident or between this story and the repeating issue of "the militarization of the police."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMortensen

Full auto is apparently a problem for some, caliber or "black rifle" is a problem for others. To me the problem is the lack of respect for our civil rights. No knock raids are a bigger problem to me than if the cop has an AR-15.

But this thread is not about "lack of respect for our civil rights" or "no knock raids" is it? No it's just another excuse for you to put forth an anti–police post. Sad really that some can't stick to the topic and have to use it as an excuse.

Is any PD going to allow a patrolman to take his rifle on a foot chase? Is that even practical?

There are a lot of tactical disadvantages to a foot chase while carrying a long gun. Just getting it out of secure storage takes enough time that the miscreant might get enough of a lead that you never catch him. No way can you run as fast with a rifle as without one. And a rifle is something that can get caught on things as you run down the street.

I am going to bet that any cop issued a rifle on an urban department is going to have pretty strict rules on when it can be deployed, and I would further bet that those rules would result in virtually no deployments of rifles by the average patrolman.

It might make the cop driving down the street feel better/safer to have a rifle locked in the trunk, or wherever they end up putting it, but whether it is ever going to make a difference is another matter, other than some potential effect on the behavior of the BGs, and a once in a lifetime event like the LA bank robbery.

<added> It appears Boston has about 2000 cops on the force. Figure about 1/3 are administrators, detectives and such, that leaves perhaps 1400 street cops. probably amounting to about 400 on duty at any one time. 200 rifles would arm half those on duty if the were shared.

__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

One is too many for me. You gave a link for the Cato Institute. A wise person would take anything that comes from the Cato institute with a grain of salt. Their founder was a strict libertarian. ANY government is too much government for them.

This is what we refer to as an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy of irrelevance. You're attacking the SOURCE of the information, and not the information itself. If you're comfortable trusting the police to do whatever they want with whatever guns they want, then that's fine. But please don't say that those of us who aren't comfortable with it aren't wise, and then back that up with illogical reasoning. That don't make no sense.

I thought an M16 was by definition select fire, either three round burst, or FA capable. Perhaps these were to be modified.

Many agencies, including LAPD, that have accepted M16s from the DoD, had the full auto capabilities removed. The elected officials that get to choose weapons had both the same LEO with a machinegun bias as shown here along with libability paranoia.

Quote:

You use the same tired arguments, against arming the police, as the anti-gunners use against you. Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

You're against the police having FA capabilities, in these threads, yet on others, you wail against government FA restrictions on yourself. Again, hypocritical.

well there is no point in arming police officers with m-16 style rifles unless the police dept has the budget for the range time that these types of rifles reqiure.If a city where these rifles are being deployed has the money to properly train their officers to utilize this weapon system then fine!Police officers shouldnt be outgunned by the criminals.On the other hand if a cop is able to have a m16 so should we.

This is what we refer to as an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy of irrelevance. You're attacking the SOURCE of the information, and not the information itself.

If I talk about our congresscritters, that technically is an ad hominem attack against the entire Congress. It is not against the rules of this board, to attack the Congress. What is against the rules is ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam.

However, the term, congresscritters, is also an invective, and as such is against the rules of this section (the L&CR forum) of TFL.

Quote:

But please don't say that those of us who aren't comfortable with it aren't wise, and then back that up with illogical reasoning.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.